From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Jul 14 2003 - 10:14:26 EDT
I agree, the obvious affectation seems desperate and
in a large way pathetic.
My original point was that Dawkins is using bad
statistical evidence to make his point. (How bright
is that?) When I reread my post, I forgot to include
that ignorance along with superstition as things that
Dawkins likes to say he is fighting. It is ignorant
(or deceitful) to use an obviously statistically
invalid sample to make a claim about NAS members
(aside from whether one should care about what NAS
members think about religion).
My response to that bit of sophistry was that why
would a "champion of rationality" used data he should
know are bad to try to make an argument based on
authority (again, aside from the fact that I don't
think NAS members are authorities, per se, on
religion)?
--- George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
(SNIP)
> The self-designation as "brights" by Dennett seems
> to me to have an air of
> desperation about it. It suggests that they realize
> that they can't make a go of it if
> they simply call themselves atheists. & it's a
> rather childish designation at that. As
> far as substance goes, it's of a piece with Steven
> Weinberg calling religious believers
> "enemies of science." (I wonder if he's ever told
> his co-winner of the Nobel Prize in
> Physics, Abdus Salam, a devout Muslim, that he's an
> enemy of science.)
> I think Dennett _et al_ make themselves look kind
> of silly by this designation
> & that it would be a serious mistake to respond to
> it by saying "We're bright too."
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 14 2003 - 10:14:32 EDT